The auto industry said it will pose a risk to vehicle-to-vehicle technologies that need this wireless spectrum

Automakers aren't too happy about a recent U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) proposal, which uses part of the wireless spectrum assigned to vehicle-to-vehicle technology for Wi-Fi instead.

The FCC announced that it plans to free up 195 MHz of spectrum in the 5 GHz band for unlicensed use in an effort to address the U.S.' spectrum crisis. This could potentially lead to Wi-Fi speeds faster than 1 gigabit per second.

The FCC voted unanimously on the topic Wednesday of this week.

However, the auto industry said this would take away previously reserved wireless spectrum for vehicle-to-vehicle technology -- which has the potential to save lives.

The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, which is a trade group consisting of Detroit's Big Three Automakers, Toyota, Volkswagen AG and some other auto companies, is among those who are upset by the FCC's latest proposal.

"[Automakers] already invested heavily in the research and development of these safety critical systems, and our successes have been based on working closely with our federal partners," said the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers. "It is imperative that, as we move forward, we do adequate research and testing on potential interference issues that could arise from opening up this band to unlicensed users and that the commission not rush to judgment before this important analysis can be done."

The Intelligent Transportation Society of America added that "the desire of the commission to move forward expeditiously, while cautioning against putting near-term life-saving innovations like connected vehicle technology at risk in the pursuit of future Wi-Fi applications."

The auto industry isn't the only one concerned with the new proposal. Certain government agencies -- like the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) -- see commercial users jumping on bands used by these agencies and posing a potential risk in doing so.

I did the Google you suggested, and read the opinion piece. That's what it is, and opinion piece. "Ayn R Key" is saying that Somalia is not an example of libertarianism because they say so. They offer no proof, just opinion, but they claim it is proof, as do you.

From the article: "Let me assure you: Somalia is hardly a libertarian paradise."

Let me assure you, libertarian paradise is an oxymoron.In Ron Paul's libertarian paradise, business owners are free to refuse service to anyone based solely on their skin color. Businesses are free to pollute. Businesses are free to operate without regard to worker safety. Businesses are free to fire employees who do not vote the way the boss tells them to vote.

Libertarian paradise is paradise for the 1%, and hell for everyone else.

Businesses are free to pollute and then be sued into non-existence by libertarian philosophy. Currently pollution below EPA maximums are completely ok even if that pollution level can be proven to do harm. The EPA protects businesses from people. A worker is always allowed to sue their employer for unsafe practices. OSHA standards protect businesses from being sued by showing compliance to what the government says is some allowable standard.

Speed limits aren't set as much by engineering principles as they are by some standards that will prevent the government overseeing the road from being sued. It's crazy that if the signs are a couple feet too close together on a construction project an individual can get off the hook for speeding through it and killing construction workers just because the signs didn't meet the minimum government standard.

Regarding racism, the federal government defines anyone a minority that is not a white male European or white male American. How do I know? I review Disadvantaged Business Enterprise documentation on government contracts. If I weren't a white male American I'd start my own business and contract with the government. BTW all you have to do to have a DBE is put 51% of your business in your wife's name even if she just stays at home and knits all day to qualify.

People are meant to be free, and that includes their business dealings. Workers are also free to use the full force of the law if true wrongs are commited againts them. Believe it or not most businesses make money on good employees and have no desire to fire such individuals. A non-profitable employee should be fired. There ought to be no such thing as the right to own an employment position.

Libertarian paradise was what the United States was founded on. The constitution is a libertarian document.

Nonsense. I'm quite sure NONE of those things are supported by Ron Paul.

The same old canned arguments for a large overbearing centralized Government continue. I suppose without one, there would also be rioting in the streets, rape would be made legal, oh and your little dog would be forced to work at the 'mill...